Agri-Food Sector: Contemporary Trends, Possible Gaps, and Prospective Directions
, Meire Ramalho de Oliveira 2, Luiz Alberto Pilatti 3 and Thales Botelho de Sousa 4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors carried out literature retrieval and bibliometric analysis around the theme related to "agri-food", and carried out a relatively standardized and reliable bibliometric analysis from different angles and dimensions. By studying the evolution of the theme and judging the trend of scientific research, they gave some analysis on the present situation and future development of "agri-food". A few suggestions are for the authors' reference: the titles of graphs and tables can be relatively expanded and standardized, which conforms to certain themes and academic paradigms. The final discussion and conclusion part can be distinguished and modified appropriately. At present, the two parts are a little mixed together, and the conclusion part is relatively thin. References can be further standardized, such as whether the names of related journals need to be abbreviated as required.
Author Response
We want to thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments, which helped to improve the article.
Below are the responses (in red) to each point noted by the reviewers.
In the paper, the changes are highlighted in yellow.
Reviewer#1 comments:
- Results
The titles of graphs and tables can be relatively expanded and standardized, which conforms to certain themes and academic paradigms.
Response: Done. The titles have been changed, expanded, and standardized as requested.
- Discussion
The final discussion and conclusion part can be distinguished and modified appropriately. At present, the two parts are a little mixed together, and the conclusion part is relatively thin.
Response: Done. The suggestions have been incorporated. The changes can be seen on pages 13-14 (lines 396-417) and page 14 (lines 452-455).
- References
References can be further standardized, such as whether the names of related journals need to be abbreviated as required.
Response: Done. The titles have been changed, expanded, and standardized as requested.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a interesting study. There are following issue, which should be addressed by the authors.
1. The processing of the data needs to be described in detail.
2. The innovativeness of the methodology used for the study needs to be clarified and whether it can be generalized for application to other subjects.
3. The font size in the figure is too small.
4. The conclusions need to be simplified and expend on research deficiencies and future research directions.
Author Response
We want to thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful comments, which helped to improve the article.
Below are the responses (in red) to each point noted by the reviewers.
In the paper, the changes are highlighted in yellow.
Reviewer#2 comments:
- Materias and Methods
The processing of the data needs to be described in detail.
Response: Done. The requested changes have been made. The changes can be seen on page 02 (lines 71-87) and page 03 (lines 102-104).
- Materias and Methods
The innovativeness of the methodology used for the study needs to be clarified and whether it can be generalized for application to other subjects.
Response: Done. The authors presented the innovations of the methodology used in Materials and Methods. The changes can be seen on page 03 (lines 109-114).
- Results
The font size in the figure is too small.
Response: The Bibliometrix package, developed in R, offers tools for detailed bibliometric and scientific analyses. The Bibliometrix package includes Biblioshiny R, which supports data import and conversion to data tables and figures. The tables and figures generated by Biblioshiny R have a small limit for changing the font size; it is impossible to increase them beyond this limit.
However, the current technology, which allows scientific articles to be published electronically, is an important aid in enabling this significant resource for bibliometric analyses, minimizing the limit for font size.
- Conclusion
The conclusions need to be simplified and expend on research deficiencies and future research directions.
Response: Done. The authors have simplified the conclusions and expanded on the research deficiencies identified in the study. Additionally, have outlined specific directions for future research to address these gaps more effectively.
The changes can be seen on page 14 (lines 439-444 and 452-455).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript interrogates research trends in Agri-food Sector between 1977 and 2024, using bibliometric method to analyse articles published in the “Scopus” and “Web of Science” databases.
The findings indicated a significant increase in publications pertaining to the agri-food industry, underscoring the importance and relevance of subjects including agriculture, agri-food, and sustainability. The circular economy emerged as a prominent emerging topic, with other areas of notable interest including traceability, blockchain, and bioactive chemicals. With respect to international cooperation and scientific output, Italy, Spain, and France have been identified as leaders. The most prominent academic journals in this field include Agriculture and Human Values, the Journal of Cleaner Production, and Sustainability.
The manuscript is a good overview of the research in this field. However, there are some weaknesses.
The author(s) stated: “The search resulted in 4,154 documents in WoS and 5,594 documents in Scopus. After filtering to select only journal papers, the results were reduced to 3,464 documents in WoS and 4,385 in Scopus. Materials from proceeding papers, book chapters, and editorials were excluded. Duplicate documents (a total of 2,665) were identified and removed, resulting in a final set of 5,141 documents for analysis.”
It would be beneficial to ascertain the number of proceeding papers, book chapters and editorials that were excluded from the analysis (in addition to any duplicate documents).
Why did the author(s) exclude the proceeding papers, book chapters and editorials?
It is my understanding that there are 43 additional documents that are not currently available.
3,464 + 4,385 = 7,849 --> 7,849 - 2,665 = 5,184 --> 5,184 - 5,141 = 43
The manuscript does not specify the language of the documents analysed; therefore, it would be beneficial to explain if the analysis is focused solely on English.
“Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.” It is not clear what the figure represents. Add the legend to the figure.
In the "Research Scope" (Figure 1), the author(s) included information about the database, the time period, the document type and the search criteria. I think it would be better to include this information in the "Data Source" box and put the research aim in the "Research Scope" box.
I would like to replace (figure 1) the label 'Research outcome' (the long-term impacts and changes achieved) with 'Research output' (immediate results of research analysis).
Page 3 row 103. “Source: Own elaboration with RStudio and Bibliometrix software, 2024”. I am not sure if Bibliometrix is software because it is described as a 'Bibliometrix package' (open-source R_pakage) on the website (see: https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php).
I suggest adding this to the reference: Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis, Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), pp 959-975, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007)
On page 4, rows from 134 to 137, the author(s) looked at two periods: 1977 to 2021 and 2022 to 2024, but I don't understand why they chose these two periods. The author should explain this. One period includes more than 40 years, and the other includes only two. It would also be interesting to consider what happened after each 10-year period (for example), starting from 1977.Why did the themes change after 2022?
Figure 6. Add in the legend the meaning of “AU_UN”, “DE” and “AU_CO”.
Figure 7: I was surprised to see that Italy, Spain and France have the highest scores for SCP and MCP. On another topic (e.g. social science), Italy has a low level of publications compared to the USA and the UK. Why is Italy (also Spain) the most relevant country in this case?
Looking at the most important sources (paragraph 3.4), we can see that Sustainability was launched in 2009. This makes it the 'youngest' compared to other journals, such as the Journal of Cleaner Production (first issue 1993). Have the author(s) thought about this when explaining the results?
Please explain how the total number of citations was calculated. It would also be helpful to include details on how this value was determined. Was it calculated, or was it provided by WoS and Scopus?
Page 3 rows from 93 to 94. I think the text of these rows should go at the end of the "Introduction". This will let the author(s) explain how the paper is structured before to start to read the methodological section.
Page 12 rows from 358 to 363. I think the text of these rows should go at the end of the "Conclusion". This will allow the author(s) to explain the limits of the study (mentioned on page 13, row 378).
Author Response
Reviewer#3 comments:
- Materias and Methods
The author(s) stated: “The search resulted in 4,154 documents in WoS and 5,594 documents in Scopus. After filtering to select only journal papers, the results were reduced to 3,464 documents in WoS and 4,385 in Scopus. Materials from proceeding papers, book chapters, and editorials were excluded. Duplicate documents (a total of 2,665) were identified and removed, resulting in a final set of 5,141 documents for analysis.”
It would be beneficial to ascertain the number of proceeding papers, book chapters and editorials that were excluded from the analysis (in addition to any duplicate documents).
Why did the author(s) exclude the proceeding papers, book chapters and editorials?
Response: The procedure of using only journal articles for bibliometric analysis is due to the uniformity of information. Journals follow standardized norms and guidelines regarding articles' structure and formatting, allowing a greater range of bibliometric analyses and more rigorous bibliometric analyses with less room for error. A highly relevant aspect regarding the provision and standardization of data is the presence of keywords as a standard in journal articles. Keywords are valuable indicators for identifying central themes and trends in a research area.
The authors added this information in Materials and Methods. The changes can be seen on page 02 (lines 79-87).
- Materias and Methods
It is my understanding that there are 43 additional documents that are not currently available.
3,464 + 4,385 = 7,849 --> 7,849 - 2,665 = 5,184 --> 5,184 - 5,141 = 43
Response: Done. The authors corrected the information in the Materials and Methods. The changes can be seen on page 02 (lines 71-78).
- Materias and Methods
The manuscript does not specify the language of the documents analysed; therefore, it would be beneficial to explain if the analysis is focused solely on English.
Response: Done. The authors have made the necessary modifications. An explanation has been added to the Materials and Methods section, clarifying that no language filter was applied in the analysis. Additionally, it was reported that for the analysis procedure, the terms were associated with their synonyms, which include variations of the same terms across different languages.
The changes can be seen on page 02 (lines 71-87).
- Materias and Methods
Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.” It is not clear what the figure represents. Add the legend to the figure.
Response: Done. The authors reformulated the legend to Figure 1. The changes can be seen on page 03.
- Materias and Methods
In the "Research Scope" (Figure 1), the author(s) included information about the database, the time period, the document type and the search criteria. I think it would be better to include this information in the "Data Source" box and put the research aim in the "Research Scope" box.
I would like to replace (figure 1) the label 'Research outcome' (the long-term impacts and changes achieved) with 'Research output' (immediate results of research analysis).
Response: Done. Figure 1 was remodeled considering the observations. The changes can be seen on page 03.
- Materias and Methods
I suggest adding this to the reference: Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis, Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), pp 959-975, Elsevier, DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 (DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007)
Response: Done. The authors inserted the recommended reference. The changes can be seen on page 03 (lines 102-104).
- Materias and Methods
Page 3 rows from 93 to 94. I think the text of these rows should go at the end of the "Introduction". This will let the author(s) explain how the paper is structured before to start to read the methodological section.
Response: Done. The authors relocated the article’s structuring information to the introduction. The changes can be seen on page 02 (lines 61-62).
- Results
Page 3 row 103. “Source: Own elaboration with RStudio and Bibliometrix software, 2024”. I am not sure if Bibliometrix is software because it is described as a 'Bibliometrix package' (open-source R_pakage) on the website (see: https://www.bibliometrix.org/home/index.php).
Response: Done. The authors corrected the information related to the sources of the figures and tables as requested.
- Results
On page 4, rows from 134 to 137, the author(s) looked at two periods: 1977 to 2021 and 2022 to 2024, but I don't understand why they chose these two periods. The author should explain this. One period includes more than 40 years, and the other includes only two. It would also be interesting to consider what happened after each 10-year period (for example), starting from 1977.Why did the themes change after 2022?
Response: Done. Explanations about the temporal delimitation of the figure were inserted in the text. The changes can be seen on page 05 (lines 158-167).
- Results
Figure 6. Add in the legend the meaning of “AU_UN”, “DE” and “AU_CO”.
Response: Done. The authors inserted the meaning of these terms into the legend in Figure 6. The changes can be seen on page 07 (line 206).
- Results
Figure 7: I was surprised to see that Italy, Spain and France have the highest scores for SCP and MCP. On another topic (e.g. social science), Italy has a low level of publications compared to the USA and the UK. Why is Italy (also Spain) the most relevant country in this case?
Response: Done. The results achieved in this analysis are directly related to the documentary corpus extracted from the WoS and Scopus databases for this specific theme. Concerning studies on this topic, these countries stand out.
- Results
Looking at the most important sources (paragraph 3.4), we can see that Sustainability was launched in 2009. This makes it the 'youngest' compared to other journals, such as the Journal of Cleaner Production (first issue 1993). Have the author(s) thought about this when explaining the results?
Response: Done. “The disparity in publication volume between the most prominent journal, Sustainability, and the other journals (Figure 9) can be attributed to two main factors. The first concerns is the journals' editorial policies, which can be classified as open-access and subscription journals. Open-access journals prioritize a higher volume of publications as a strategy to expand their visibility and reach a wider global audience [53,54], and this type of editorial policy may be a factor indicative of Sustainability's large publication volume. The second factor is related to the thematic flexibility of these journals. Sustainability has a broad scope, addressing sustainability from several dimensions, such as economic, social, environmental, and cultural. As a multidisciplinary journal, it accepts papers from different areas, including social sciences, public policy, technology, and education. The Journal of Cleaner Production, which ranks second in the volume of publications on the topic, has a hybrid editorial policy, offering open access and subscription options. Although also interdisciplinary, this journal has a narrower focus, concentrating on clean production, circular economy, and strategies to mitigate environmental impacts in industrial processes and production systems. This approach may be limiting for authors whose work deals with sustainability more broadly.”
The authors added this explanation in Discussion. The changes can be seen on pages 13-14 (lines 396-417).
- Results
Please explain how the total number of citations was calculated. It would also be helpful to include details on how this value was determined. Was it calculated, or was it provided by WoS and Scopus?
Response: Done. The authors inserted the explanation in the text to facilitate understanding. (“Data on the number of citations were obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus databases and subsequently compiled and analyzed using the R Bibliometrix package”).
- Discussion
Page 12 rows from 358 to 363. I think the text of these rows should go at the end of the "Conclusion". This will allow the author(s) to explain the limits of the study (mentioned on page 13, row 378).
Response: Done. The authors made the requested changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
